Controversy ad Storm2k

I just caused a huge amount of controversy at Storm2k bb. Not flaming or anything like that. Simply stating the theory discussed at our club. Posters lied

Message 1 of 1
, Aug 2, 2005

0 Attachment

I just caused a huge amount of controversy at Storm2k bb.

Not flaming or anything like that. Simply stating the theory
discussed at our club. Posters lied about what I wrote, and
complained to the admin, and my posts were deleted--TWICE. We
weren't posting on other threads--simply made a thread on space
weather and the fur flied. Ten times the heat and passion compared
to the debate between the warmers and fake skeptics.

There was a poster their named Jim Hughes who has a theory that when
the solar winds drop below 500 tropical formations occur. I
explained why and it drove the barotropic thinkers nuts. Here is
some of that conversation (lucky I saved it):

"Then we have Mike Doran's posts, which I can't make any coherent
sense of. It appears he's got some variant of the Gaia hypothesis
going, but what it's all about I can't divine.

Jan "

And part of my reply back to him was:

"Well then we are even. Because you refuse to state what it is you
cannot 'divine', I cannot communicate with you. This is about the
same as blaming yourself for my ignorance, and it is equally
insulting."

And the reply that ended the thread, that had about a thousand hits
in a day:

"LOL! I stated quite clearly what it is I can't divine: any coherent
hypothesis on your part. I'm sorry if it insults you for me to say
this, but you're just tossing out all kinds of stuff, some valid,
much not valid (for example the false notion that there is large
electric charge separation in hurricanes, or the odd notion that "
the ocean below the tropical storm provides a conductive area where
opposing charges are held on the ocean surface" when clearly a more
conductive condition would dissipate charge separation) and then
assert that this supports something or other.

I'm sure there are people in this forum, myself included, who would
be willing to help you think rigorously about the electrical
properties of weather systems, if that's what you want to do. But the
approach you are using so far just won't cut it. "

Since there may be some confusion here that on the barotropical
poster which is difficult to fanthom anywhere, I will explain why
what he is saying is false and misleading.

Let's start with the assertion that I said that there are charge
separations in hurricanes. That is patently false. Charge
separations that increase the positive potential in the ionosphere
occur from strikes, largely over the terresphere from thunderstorms.
Hurricanes that are well organized have few strikes. The positive
potential in the ionosphere is merely organized in the conductive
ionosphere and couples with the ocean in a capacitive manner. Here
representative is a static field diagram of this. Note that no
current is flowing is pictured flowing from ionosphere to ocean, and
it does not depend on strikes in the hurricane. Movement of the
hurricane causes current movement in the ionosphere and ocean, not
between the ionosphere and ocean:

Finally, the notion that the more conductive the virtual capacitor
that a hurricane is, that this "would dissipate charge separation" is
absurd. Indeed, capacitors are made of conductive material so that
the magnetic field lines can more easily move the charges into
equilibrium or magnetic stability. Perhaps the most famous example
of this is the ark of the covenant mentioned in the bible. It was
covered with gold--and gold is HIGHLY conductive.

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.